Effects of Dimethyl Fumarate on Brain Atrophy in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Pooled Analysis Phase 3 DEFINE and CONFIRM Studies

OBJECTIVE: In the pivotal DEFINE and CONFIRM trials for dimethyl fumarate (DMF), patterns of brain volume changes were different, potentially due to low sample sizes and because MRIs were analyzed at two different reading centers. We evaluated effects of DMF on brain volume change in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) through reanalysis of pooled images from DEFINE/CONFIRM trials in one reading center. METHODS: MRIs from DEFINE/CONFIRM at weeks 0, 24, 48, and 96 from patients randomized to twice-daily DMF or placebo (PBO) were reanalyzed at the Cleveland Clinic to measure brain parenchymal fraction (BPF). To account for pseudoatrophy, brain volume estimates were re-baselined to calculate changes for weeks 48–96. RESULTS: Across studies, 301 and 314 patients receiving DMF and PBO, respectively, had analyzable MRIs. In weeks 0–48, mean ± SE percentage change in BPF was −0.44 ± 0.04 vs. −0.34 ± 0.04% in DMF vs. PBO, respectively, whereas in weeks 48–96, mean ± SE percentage change in BPF was −0.27 ± 0.03 vs. −0.41 ± 0.04% in DMF vs. PBO, respectively. The mixed-effect model for repeated measures showed similar results: in weeks 48–96, estimated change (95% confidence interval) in BPF was −0.0021 (−0.0027, −0.0016) for DMF vs. −0.0033 (−0.0039, −0.0028) for PBO (35.9% reduction; p = 0.0025). CONCLUSIONS: The lower rate of whole brain volume loss with DMF in this pooled BPF analysis in the second year vs. PBO is consistent with its effects on relapses, disability, and MRI lesions. Brain volume changes in the first year may be explained by pseudoatrophy effects also described in other MS clinical trials

Serial whole-brain magnetization transfer imaging in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis at baseline and during treatment with interferon beta-1b

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine whether occult disease fluctuates with macroscopic lesions during the natural history of multiple sclerosis (MS) and whether therapeutic interventions affect occult disease, we performed serial monthly magnetization transfer (MT) imaging in patients with relapsing-remitting MS in a crossover trial with interferon beta-1b. METHODS: Serial whole-brain magnetization transfer ratios (MTRs) in eight patients with relapsing-remitting MS and in four control subjects were plotted as normalized histograms, and MTR parameters were compared with contrast-enhancing lesions and bulk white matter lesion load. RESULTS: In patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the histographic peak of 0.25 ؎ 0.01 and the histographic mean of 0.21 ؎ 0.01 were statistically lower than corresponding values in control subjects, in whom the histographic peak was 0.27 ؎ 0.01 and the histographic mean was 0.23 ؎ 0.01. When histograms (with MTRs ranging from 0.0 to 0.5) were analyzed by quartiles (quartile 1 to quartile 4) based on histographic area, voxels with low MTRs in quartile 1 (0 to 0.12) increased during the baseline period and corresponded to bulk white matter lesion load. Interferon beta-1b reduced enhancing lesions by 91% and mean bulk white matter lesion load by 15%, but had no effect on MTR in this patient cohort. CONCLUSION: Occult disease in normal-appearing white matter of patients with relapsingremitting MS measured by MTR parallels the waxing and waning pattern of enhancing lesions and bulk white matter lesion load during the baseline period. MTR is not altered by interferon beta-1b, which raises the possibility of ongoing disease in normal-appearing white matter (not detected by conventional MR sequences)

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded